taken away in the use of them This is easily said and pretended but what boots it when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship and to direct and secure them in it do hear a company of distinctions * Vid. supra in introduct ex Bel. they understand not Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined we may without rash judgement which this Author layes to our charge pa. 72. challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition in this and other points of worship The first Protestant position saith he is That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness and the Scripture is Deut. 4.15 16. This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome Of picturing God the Father pa. 75. Before we ask his reason note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * Bel. de Imagin l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholicks Abulensis Durand Peresius and others to be of Calvins opinion herein that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians who had no Images of God as Minutius Foelix and other ancient writers affirm Now see this Authors reason why that Scripture is mistaken and misapplied by us First because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly that is to signifie he is of a figure or shape like that Image pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say they did so represent their Gods by their Images Again we represent God saith he only historically as he appeared to the prophets as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes neither is it forbidden to represent him as he pleased to represent himself pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History Difference in picturing of a Vision and History to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to shew himself to the eye is tolerable but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty as appears by the decree set down by this Author pa. 72. of figuring * Historias narrationes Sacrae Script Conc. Trid. Sess 24. histories and passages of Scripture in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of figure thus also in the story of our Saviours baptisme they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds when as they only heard a voice saw no shape so in the story of Creation they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand and without reference to history they figure the Trinity God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes as of providence by an eye and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand wings feet to God Almighty I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument but only some semblance for representations of God for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions they will not prove innocent Images which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves The second protestant position saith he is That no Image ought to be worshipped The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1 Exod. 20.4 5. Here he makes as they do all in this point a great noise about the words and translations The pretended distinction of Idol and Image to amuse the Reader in examining the thing it self spending thirty pages upon the words Idol graven-image likeness and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial for saith he no word in the first Text signifies Image and that which we render graven-image out of the Hebrew Pesel every where signifies an Idol and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum now there is a great difference between Idol and Image for an Image is the representation of a true thing but Idol a representation of what neither is nor can be as he who makes or uses it intends thus he in pa. 78 79 80 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine sculptile and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel does generally imply Image likeness representation although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it it signifies an Idol in his sense and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image well let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible our reasoning and argument against image-Image-worship will stand firm it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years according to Scripture asserted and after the Cardinal whom this Author follows had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image he is forced to admit that which defaces it as this Author we shall see is content to do in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols The prohibition of the Commandment was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun so grosly abused both the words of Scripture and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship to defend that hold and in order to that conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment and leave only that which they call an Idol under it Upon his long descant upon the words we may note 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing and such was Pesel the graven images statues pillars forbidden in those texts whereas the things represented or the reputed Deities Baal Jupiter Diana were Idols too and the main ones and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images were Idolaters by the first commandment And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * Vt infra 〈◊〉 12. and second Commandment
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
the presence but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament But hear a great subtilty that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot saith he stand with the Protestant doctrine Bread how Sacrament of his body which in the little Catechisme defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace his conclusion is therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves He knows first that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible and so it is still visible in it self and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament then the Romanists do His body is broken eaten blood shed drunk in the Sacrament invisibly yea all this really done but invisibly when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution and before his body was indeed broken or his blood shed on the Cross Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament because he was visible Nay but though he be now invisible yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie but he that makes the blood go along with the body that who receives the one has the other too might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace which as I said goes alwayes along with it so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said signe of an inward spiritual grace so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces Well we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie Mr. Spencers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants any man might think if he were in earnest it would follow there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and therefore he subjoyns pa. 283. line ult yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament why For iâ— signifies that heavenly and divine grace which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward and spiritual this is well but if the spiritual grace be given by vertue of it i. e. the Sacrament does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it Yea we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls may be truly called a spiritual grace and inward too when it is Sacramentally received very good all this But is there no sign of this body Hear him also saying that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament only is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtiltie and what could a Protestant desire more Only when he said nourishing our souls he adds and our bodies which I take to be a slip for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say Christs body nourishes our bodies And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls that that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body that our Saviours body is truly existent or given in the Sacrament that our Saviours body nourishes our souls Now in the difference between us see which has the advantage 1. Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several wayes That which sensibly appears saith he and is called Sacramentum tantum is the Sacramental signe of our Saviours body but what is that which appears he tells you presently those shews and species under which he will have Christs body to exist but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament Of the Sacramental signe of a body What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Saviours body as phantastical and in shew and appearance only Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament the corporal breaking the eating the nourishing Whereas Protestants retaining the substance of the Sacramental element Bread preserve the outward part of the Sacrament and all the uses of it without which the Sacrament is mairned if not destroyed preserve I say the outward part without prejudice to the inward which is Christs body and blood for we hold of it as above existent really given and nourishing the soul which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part by making it existent under those shews or species as he saith here for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then who upon the mistake of the Churches doctrine as Theodoret in his Dialogues shews made semblance for their heresie saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament shape only and appearance remaining Again they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread that Christs body and they make unum quid but one thing so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go or are cast into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men and stayes wheresoever the species are till putrefaction of the species if they without the body of Bread be capable of it drive the body of Christ away This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species in the place of substantial bread we as was said preserve the Sacrament intire acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body are properly and literally to be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary might pass for a truth if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains All the former inconveniences inconsistencies with many more tending to contradiction do constrain to the contrary To
incumbent on us in order to our salvation Again he replies The obligation of that precept upon particular persons That command may be answered by saying It is a precept given to the Church in general that what our Saviour here commands be done p. 346. We have heard of an implicit faith but here is an implicit receiving so it be done in the Church the command is performed as if every Christian in particular were not concerned in the purpose of this Sacrament or could live by another mans eating and drinking At length perswaded by S. Thomas his authority he would not by S Pauls alone to apply the do this both to the Host and the Cup and to admit a precept in it for the Laity to receive this Sacrament he betakes himself to the usual refuge They satisfy the precept of eating and drinking if they receive it in either p. 148 149. that is they drink the Cup if they eat the Bread His S. Thomas his Invention of concomitancy will not salve this nor can the Reader be satisfied with the fast and loose this Author so often playes in answering to the precept Do this The order he speaks of prescribed by holy Church now ordaining both to be received now but one and to some the Host to others the Calice only doth no where appear but in the late orders of the Romish Church In the ancient Church though sometimes in cases of necessity one part might be administred privately never were such Orders made nor such practice used publickly solemnly or when both could be administred To Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood he answers It is a general command given to the generality of Christians to receive his body by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and to every particular Christian to concurr to the execution of this command not that every one in particular is obliged to do both but that some eating some drinking others doing both each particular confers to the performance of the Command p. 351. Thus the body and blood shed are with them received in either kind by virtue of their concomitance and the command of eating and drinking is satisfied and performed by vertue of Concurrence every person conferring to the performance of it This is Implicit receiving so both be done among you it is sufficient when as our Saviour layes both upon every particular person and so repeats it in the singular He that eateth and drinketh v. 54 58. and that in order to his having life in him His instancing in the precept to teach and baptize all Nations Mat. 28. not binding each of the Apostles in particular to teach and baptize the whole world 352. has the fate of all his instances to be impertinent for it runs upon the extent of the object only the whole world which implyed an impossibility not upon the exercise of the whole duty or office which did not admit a liberty of forbearing either act of preaching or baptizing For as the obligation in the Sacrament is to eating and drinking so there to a double act of their office Teaching and Baptizing That Apostle that would set down with doing one of them only should not do his duty It is objected p. 356. If it be given so to the Church in general then may the command be satisfied and performed so be it the Church provides certain persons to receive and exempt all the rest In his answers to this we may see the giddiness of mans brain when set against the apparent Truth of Gods word If we take the sense saith he according to the common strein of Doctors every particular will be obliged by the words except ye eat and especially secing that S. 1 Cor 11. Paul extends this matter of Communion to each particular This is one Truth he so much streined against above notwithstanding those Doctors and S. Paul that every particular man is obliged but how and to what to eat and drink that 's express both in 6. of Joh. and 1 Cor. 11. but disjunctively as he saith elswhere p. 350. that is to eat or drink Heer 's the giddiness and vanity of wilfull error to make alimitation or gloss clean contrary to the text for our Saviours words oblige to these acts conjunctively eat and drink thrice in Joh. 6. and the Apostle Saint Paul thrice conjunctively eat and drink 1 Cor. 11. Secondly in answer to the former objection he grants it was not in the power of the Apostles to exempt any of the Twelve from concurring to the conversion of the Nations p. 356. If he will have this pertinent he should adde but it was in their power to exempt some of the Twelve from doing the whole duty or several acts enjoyned by our Saviour that if one of them taught only another baptized onely and so all partially concurred to the performing our Saviours command it had been sufficient He will not surely say this yet dare defend it in their Churches exempting the people from the one part of duty enjoyned them by our Saviour He subjoyns It is not in the Churches power to exempt any one from this precept by having it performed of other Christians appointed by her Anthority 357. Yet their Church takes power to exempt from one part drinking his blood-shed which lyes under the command and obligation as well as the other of eating Thirdly he grants here another Truth to the acknowledgment of his Impertinency above where he instanced in the freedom of receiving Priesthood and Marriage to imply a liberty of receiving or not receiving the Cup but here he grants this Sacrament is not left free as Marriage and Priesthood are without a divine Precept that every Christian sometimes receive it p. 357. This is fair but see the obstinacy still and giddiness of wilfull error That eating only is sufficient because our Saviour when he expresses himself in the singular number attributes eternal life to it He that cateth me shall live by me Joh. 6.57 Nay that the words ye eat and drink v. 53. cannot include a necessity of both kinds to every particular person without contradiction to this Text so he p. 358 359. As if one should reason If it be true that he who is born of the spirit shall enter into the kingdome of heaven then cannot the Text Joh. 3.5 unless a man be born of water and spirit include a necessity of both nor when the Scripture requires Repent and believe Mar. 1. that cannot include a necessity of both for the kingdome of heaven without contradiction to the Text Joh. 3. ult where one only is mentioned and life attributed to it He that believeth in me hath everlasting life Again it may be said that eating is sometimes mentioned alone in that chapter as answerable to the occasion of the discourse Manna and bread from heaven and as fit to set out the reception of faith which at the same time
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
of the pain or torment Bel. l. Dubitat de poenae qualitate an idem sit ignis an animae urentur igne illo doloris de amissâ—one temporalium whether it were the same fire in substance with that of Hell also that he doubted whether souls shall be scorched with that fire of grief for the loss of things temporal But these exceptions or answers are also impertinent for his Tale aliquid some such thing and his Talia quaedam judicia some such punishments do not refer to any material fire or fire properly taken or to such a fire as Hell fire but to the fire of tribulation in this life which he every where speaks of when he fals upon that place of 1 Cor. 3.13 and that some such thing that is afflictive may be after this life he thinks not incredible and that perhaps it is so For let the Romanists conceive the pain or Torment of purgatory to be of what condition or sort soever they please it will be answered by that tale aliquid and talia quaedam judicia and so will imply that Fathers uncertainty in that his opinion of Purgatory pains after death So for that fire of grief upon loss of Temporals which the Cardinal will have St. Aug. doubt of it is plain he could not mean that very kinde of grief when he said tale aliquid some such thing but any kinde of grief or vexation that should torment the soul as with a kinde of fire Whether there were any such thing any such grief or pain that 's it he put to the question and declared his opinion of it that it was not incredible but rather that he held it probable and that place in his Book de Civit. Dei where he delivered it positively that there were such purging pains can amount to no more then an opinion he had entertained which he delivers there the more peremptorily in opposition to that other opinion of the Ceasing of the pains of the damned To conclude the Cardinal declares it as a thing Certain Bel. de purg l. 2. c. 10. Certum esse in Purgatoriâ— poenam ignis sive propriè accipiatur sive Metaâ—horiâ—é that there is in Purgatory the punishment of fire whether taken properly or Metaphorically whether a real fire such as of Hell or such a pain that as fire torments the souls of men Now St. August his tale aliquid of which he doubted was such a thing such a fire or tormenting pain and therefore St. Aug. was uncertain of that which the Church of Rome delivers as certain and as an Article of Faith SECT VII Of the Real Presence TOuching the state of this Controversie The question there was enough said above Chap. VII Nu. 1. That we deny not a Real presence but such a presence as they contend for such as by a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine sixes the body and bloud of Christ under the remaining species the inconveniencies of which are hinted above chap. VII Nu. 13 16 17. I will only add to the farther clearing of this state of the Question what the Cardinal notes upon the word substantialiter in the Trent Council can 1. sess 13. It means that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner * Bel. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Christum esse in Eucharistia ad eum modum quo erat substantia panis subsuis accidentibus that the substance of bread was under its accidents this only excepted that those accidents were inhaerent in the substance of the Bread So then such a manner of Presence is that which we deny The Scripture which they pretend This is my body was examined * Chap. 7. above and found to be best explained by that of the Apostle * 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break is the communion or communication of the body of Christ which supposes the bread continuing in substance and tels us how it is notwithstanding the body of Christ And now for a brief Survey of Antiquity upon this enquiry Testimonies of Antiquity whether such a presence by way of Transubstantiation or fixing the body of Christ under the species in stead of the substance of the bread was taught as Catholick Doctrine The Truth will quickly appear by the different condition and force of those Testimonies which they and we bring from Antiquity within the compass of 600. years Many sayings of the Fathers they alledge and want not for number but weight For if those sayings or sentences be examined they will be found not to speak properly and strictly to the point but either fall short of the change here intended or shoot beyond all measure by some hyperbolical expressions whereas we bring Testimonies of Fathers speaking punctually of the nature and substance of the Elements according to the proper and strict sense of those words Also we bring real Arguments necessarily concluding by that which the Fathers disputed against Hereticks that Transubstantiation or such a Presence by putting the body of Christ in the place of the substance of Bread could not be the Doctrine of the Church We will reduce all to this Head The remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine First To omit all those bare sentences which affirm it to be the body or flesh of Christ Sayings of Fathers alledged by the Romanists after Consecration as speaking nothing but what we say and what we conceive ought to be answered in the affirmative if the question be put Whether is this the body of Christ And it speaks no more then the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 This bread is the communication of the body of Christ And it is to be noted that some of the sentences alledged by the Romanists expresly make Bread the subject of that affirmative proposition saying Panem esse corpus Christi that bread is the body of Christ or the like which kinde of speech the Romanists themselves acknowledge improper and figurative Also to omit all those sentences which barely say the bread is changed or transelemented or the like For there are many kindes of change and that only which is concerned in the Question is the change of substance Secondly therefore Those Testimonies only may seem to speak something to the purpose which say the Elements are changed in Nature for this Cyprian Ambrose and Nyssen are alledged by * Bel. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. the Cardinal But the word Nature is of a large acception here not expressing the substance or essence of the thing but the condition and special quality of it as we say Things are of different Nature some are common and profane some holy and divine so the elements after consecration are changed in their Nature beginning then to be of holy use and divine vertue On the contrary we alledge Theodoret denying they are changed in Nature taking the word strictly for the substantial nature as the dispute he there makes required he should do * Theod.
the Cardinal turns into shall be incorruptible because he could not say they are now truly and indeed incorruptible So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus As our bodies now are incorruptible not because they are so according to nature and substance but in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection so the Bread is the body of Christ not because changed in nature and substance but in as much as by the grace of consecration it is the communion of his body Tertullian had to do with Marcion and such Hereticks that denied Christ had a true and solid body And he proves the contrary by Bread the figure of his body Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figura nisi veritatis esset corpus both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist Now saith he it could not be the figure of his body if his body were not a true body And if there be force in this Reason then should Marcion supposing Transubstantiation have great advantage upon a phantastical figure that had no substance of bread but only the Accidents and appearances and upon such a phantastical mode of a Body Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit quia corporis carebat veritate Tert. ibid. as the Romish doctrine puts our Saviours body into Also the words following If he took bread as those Hereticks said to make it his body because he wanted a true body then it would follow that Bread was given and crucified for us These words I say do necessarily suppose the substance of Bread to remain for how could that be said if the Bread also should want the truth of a body remaining only in shew and appearance which would much have confirmed Marcion in his misbelief of the reality of Christs body of which there should be so phantastical a figure or sign This is so evident and convincing that Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations acknowledges Tertullian of this judgment That Bread is so the figure of Christs body that it still remains the same in substance as it was before Add to this what he saith elsewhere Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa objecta ne hinc aliquid procuretur Haereticis de Christo phantasma credentibus Non est gustus Discipulorum Iudificatus The senses are not deceived in their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yielded to the Hereticks making but a phantasm of Christ The tast of the disciples was not deceived when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused when he put his finger in our Saviours side Nor are our senses may we say abused or deceived when they tell us this is true bread which is in the Sacrament Theodoret had to do with the Eutychian Hereticks that held our Saviours humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature for which they made Argument from the Sacrament Theod. Dâ—â— al. 2. That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecration changed into another thing for such was the common phrase of that Time when speech was of the Sacrament so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord after assumption changed into the divine substance This Argument had been unanswerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument Thou art taken in thy own Net for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but remain in ther former substance and figure and shape That the words Nature and Substance must be here taken properly and not confounded as in the Romanists irrational answer they are with the Accidents or Species of the Bread and Wine is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents and by the very reason of the Argument here made which supposeth Nature and Substance properly taken on the Eutychian part and so must be meant in Theodorets Reply to the plain exclusion of a Substantial change The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his * In Biblioth Patrum To. 5. parte 3. Book of the two Natures of Christ against Eutyches Nestorius Of which Book the †Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet quod Theodoretus ad eandem rem confirmandam Cardinal acknowledgeth that Gelasius taught the same with Theodoret and for confirming of the very same thing It being familiar with the Catholick writers of those Times to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresie which did necessarily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements to shew the remaining of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption Nay before that Heresie appeared some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ to shew the Sacramental Union as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demonstration or illustration for the two Natures united in our Saviour Christ Justin Martyr saith thus We take these not as common bread or common drink Just Apol. 2. ad Anton. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even as Jesus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our salvation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we learn also that the meat or food which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist by which our flesh and bloud through the change of it are nourished is the flesh and bloud of the same incarned Jesus Here is Bread though not common bread after consecration and Bread remaining in Substance for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh and it must answer to our Saviours flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of the Eucharist requires St. Cyprian or the Author of that Sermon de Coena of the Lords Supper saith Even as in the Person of Christ Sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità sacro visibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia the humanity appeared and the Divinity laid hid So doth the divine essence ineffably insinuate itself into the visible sacred Element This place is cited for a Real Presence by the Cardinal but he should have considered it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equally proved by this saying of the Father and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain as the Cardinal doth in shew and appearance only which renders this instance of the Sacrament held altogether useless against those Hereticks which held our Saviours body or humanity was but such in appearance only not substance Thus the Fathers that dealt with Hereticks were bound to speak